[Jason Topp]

On the telecast last week, Nicklaus described one of his left to right angled greens (might have been 12) as presenting the following challenge with a back right hole location:

You need to make your choice - you can play short/left or long/right but regardless, you need to commit to a line and get your distance correct - you cannot go long left or short right. [paraphrase]

In other words - you need to choose your option and execute.

This approach is not unique.  12 at Augusta National is the most famous example.

In my experience, many Nicklaus greens use this approach - more often on left to right greens but not always.  5 at Pebble Beach is the same type of hole. 

I think the approach makes sense for tournament golf but does not make a ton of sense for every day play - at least not to the extent Nicklaus emphasizes it.  The approach offers no bailout - even the middle of the green option carries significant risk.  Furthermore, it runs the opposite of the ideal of making a course a challenge for good players and playable for all.  Good players are quite good at distance control.  Average players are horrible at it.     

Comments?

[David_Tepper]

Jason -

You are right, Nicklaus has designed many greens like that one. The fact that Nicklaus could hit a high, soft fade just about better than anyone and that type of green favors just such a shot is no mere coincidence!

[Lou_Duran]

MV was not intended to be a member's course.  Before I left Ohio in 1978, the original caddy master (a retired insurance executive)  told me of a foursome of Japanese executives that jetted in just to play MV, and about an hour or so after they went out, back they came to reload on balls.  They loved every minute of their time despite losing three plus dozen balls each.

MV is probably quite different than AN (haven't played AN) in that water comes into play in a significant way in something like 14 holes.  My forte when I was playing well was hitting the ball solidly (controlling my distance).  Unfortunately, I have always fought coming over the top, so most of my balls tended to go left, and a few to the right when I tried to correct and overdid it (resulting in what you paraphrased).  I suspect that I can play AN tee to green.  I can't shoot a score at MV.  I've played a number of Nicklaus courses well, so I think that MV is a totally different animal.  Also, Nicklaus himself has said that he has changed his design approach, now focusing more from the member's perspective, and then finding tee locations for the experts secondarily.

MV is not an ideal course in your or MacKenzie's definition.  Based on what I've seen at most gca.com associated outings, it is unplayable for most attendees.  It is one of the best tests of golf I've experienced, without a doubt clearly identifying who can play the game and who can't.  How the pros shoot the scores at the Memorial they do is beyond my comprehension.  

[Jason Topp]

MV was not intended to be a member's course.  Before I left Ohio in 1978, the original caddy master (a retired insurance executive)  told me of a foursome of Japanese executives that jetted in just to play MV, and about an hour or so after they went out, back they came to reload on balls.  They loved every minute of their time despite losing three plus dozen balls each.

MV is probably quite different than AN (haven't played AN) in that water comes into play in a significant way in something like 14 holes.  My forte when I was playing well was hitting the ball solidly (controlling my distance).  Unfortunately, I have always fought coming over the top, so most of my balls tended to go left, and a few to the right when I tried to correct and overdid it (resulting in what you paraphrased).  I suspect that I can play AN tee to green.  I can't shoot a score at MV.  I've played a number of Nicklaus courses well, so I think that MV is a totally different animal.  Also, Nicklaus himself has said that he has changed his design approach, now focusing more from the member's perspective, and then finding tee locations for the experts secondarily.

MV is not an ideal course in your or MacKenzie's definition.  Based on what I've seen at most gca.com associated outings, it is unplayable for most attendees.  It is one of the best tests of golf I've experienced, without a doubt clearly identifying who can play the game and who can't.  How the pros shoot the scores at the Memorial they do is beyond my comprehension.  

Thanks for the description Lou. 

I think I have gotten a taste of what that course must be like at La Paloma and Desert Highlands - both of which demonstrated that I am in the "can't" group with respect to iron shots.

[JESII]

This concept is bourne out of the use of angles to gain an advantage, isn't it?

On #14 at MV you can mitigate what Jack describes by hitting a great tee shot down the left edge.

#12 doesn't afford that opportunity and is simply a copy of #12 at Augusta...which is a supreme "shot testing" hole for any level player...sometimes you just gotta hit the shot.

Jack's comments though are interesting in light of our (GCA) idea of a strategic two shot hole...if he was referring to #14 (a BIG IF); then he seems to look at and think about two shot holes as two distinct shots that have little bearing on each other...Surely Jonathan Byrd had an exponentially more difficult (and punishing) approach to #14 on Sunday than the guy that hits it in the left first cut off the tee and is left looking straight up the green.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim S:  Dead right about #14.

Lou:  I agree with you, and I think your comment about your own misses is an important one.  For a lot of his courses, Mr. Nicklaus did favor greens which angled back from left to right.  Those are much more punishing than greens which angle the other way, because most right-handed golfers tend to miss either long left or short right -- both of which are dead on the 12th at Murifield Village (or the 12th at Augusta).

However, Lou, do not believe what Jack has been quoted as saying about designing from the members' tees.  In the six or seven days I spent with him going over everything at Sebonack, he always went to the back tee, and I can only think of two holes where he paid any attention to the others [maybe he just thought our choices were fine].  Also, he always went to the stake in the middle of the fairway to look at the green, and never to the left or right edge.

[Bill_McBride]

Jason, he was talking about #14, with the back right pin on Sunday.

I was surprised by the number of players who played down the right side of the fairway.  Their distance control is so good I guess the angles have become less important.

That's another argument for firm greens!

[C. Squier]

My very simple observation from playing a smattering of Nicklaus courses from all points during his career, including MV and Valhalla is that as Jack aged, his courses became less demanding for shots into the green.  I don't know if that's because his own personal skills lessened, complete coincidence or just my vivid imagination. 

As for #12 at MV, I believe that green is designed for one reason only....to mimic #12 at ANGC.  Nothing wrong with that, just that it had little to do with any of his own personal strategic beliefs.  A "one off" if you will.

[Anthony Gray]

My very simple observation from playing a smattering of Nicklaus courses from all points during his career, including MV and Valhalla is that as Jack aged, his courses became less demanding for shots into the green.  I don't know if that's because his own personal skills lessened, complete coincidence or just my vivid imagination. 

As for #12 at MV, I believe that green is designed for one reason only....to mimic #12 at ANGC.  Nothing wrong with that, just that it had little to do with any of his own personal strategic beliefs.  A "one off" if you will.

 Clint,

  Excellent post. 12 is a copy of Augusta. I do not think alot of thinking went into that hole because it looks and plays the same way.

  Anthony

[Wade Whitehead]

Excellent post. 12 is a copy of Augusta. I do not think alot of thinking went into that hole because it looks and plays the same way.

The holes may similar in some regards, but I believe the play very differently.

12 at Augusta is shorter and plays into, across, or down a swirling, hard-to-decipher wind.

12 at MV plays twenty yards longer.  The shot from its back bunker can be more dangerous than Augusta's.  And wind seems far more predictable (or at least easier to figure) than Augusta 12.

Just thoughts on your thoughts.

WW

[Jason Topp]

My very simple observation from playing a smattering of Nicklaus courses from all points during his career, including MV and Valhalla is that as Jack aged, his courses became less demanding for shots into the green.  I don't know if that's because his own personal skills lessened, complete coincidence or just my vivid imagination. 

As for #12 at MV, I believe that green is designed for one reason only....to mimic #12 at ANGC.  Nothing wrong with that, just that it had little to do with any of his own personal strategic beliefs.  A "one off" if you will.

 Clint,

  Excellent post. 12 is a copy of Augusta. I do not think alot of thinking went into that hole because it looks and plays the same way.

  Anthony

I completely disagree that the design of 12 was a thoughtless one off.  Instead the opposite is true.

While12 is a copy of 12 at Augusta, Nicklaus copied the green because he admires the hole.  He loves it so much he used the same green on 14, which was what the quote was from, and on a zillion other greens.

[Lou_Duran]

It must follow then that Macdonald and Raynor never gave much thought to their designs since they basically fit previous hole models to the site.

It's been awhile, but I think the #12 tee at MV is more elevated, the green is larger, deeper, and not as slanted, and there is more room to the left.  It also doesn't have nearly the pucker factor.

Nicklaus seems to get a lot of crap for designing golf courses which favor his game.  Supposedly his greens only receive high fades.  I guess someone forgot to inform two-time Memorial winner Kenny Perry who hits most everything right-to-left of that fact.

BTW, I hear that Tom Doak is not real good tee to green but a superb putter.  Compared to his peers, Crenshaw is not a good driver, but fabulous on the greens.  Both gentlemen build courses that primarily defend par on and around the green.  Why is it that these gca.com darlings don't get similar grief for designing courses which suit their games?

[Anthony Gray]

  What was Jack thinking when he designed the green? Something original? Something new? Barritz? Punchbowl? What does it look like? The line of play from the tee is it the same as Augusta or do the playres take a different line? Do they aim at the flag when the pin is on the right or do they take it over the bunker as they do at Augusta? Do you look at that hole without it looking familiar? Or is this hole an uninspired classic? The distance is different but is it greater than one club? The wind is different but do you see players bouncing them in? Are my eye playing tricks on me?


  Anthony
 

[Jason Topp]

It must follow then that Macdonald and Raynor never gave much thought to their designs since they basically fit previous hole models to the site.
. . .
BTW, I hear that Tom Doak is not real good tee to green but a superb putter.  Compared to his peers, Crenshaw is not a good driver, but fabulous on the greens.  Both gentlemen build courses that primarily defend par on and around the green.  Why is it that these gca.com darlings don't get similar grief for designing courses which suit their games?

Lou:

I do not know if your comments are directed at me.   I like many Nicklaus courses, so I am by no means a basher.  


But a few thoughts:

1.  I agree that his designs are thought out - particularly at courses such as Muirfield Village (I fixed a typo above).  I started this thread because I thought Nicklaus' comments were very interesting, entirely supportable as a design approach, and contrary to our usual discussions here.

2.  Nicklaus does defend par around the green at most of his courses now - but I would argue he does so more by rewarding precise iron play than by challenges on and around the green itself.  Tee to green - most of his courses are very wide.  

3.  I agree that design preferences tend to match up with the strengths and weaknesses of the designer.  In addition to your examples, Palmer makes right to left holes.

4.  The only distinction I can make between Coore/Crenshaw/Doak v. Nicklaus is that, for me, the Coore/Crenshaw/Doak approach allows a bailout option that has a greater margin for safety - even though it will likely yield a very difficult long putt or chip.  Generally - I prefer that approach to course design as allowing all levely of player to have fun, rather than getting hit over the head with the fact he cannot hit a high 180 yard approach to a precise distance and having the punishment be water or a similar disaster.
 
5.  Interesting point about Perry.  Perhaps a better description of Nicklaus courses is that they emphasize precise iron play distance control.  Lehman would be another example of a right to left player that has done well at the Memorial.

[Bill_McBride]

It must follow then that Macdonald and Raynor never gave much thought to their designs since they basically fit previous hole models to the site.
. . .
BTW, I hear that Tom Doak is not real good tee to green but a superb putter.  Compared to his peers, Crenshaw is not a good driver, but fabulous on the greens.  Both gentlemen build courses that primarily defend par on and around the green.  Why is it that these gca.com darlings don't get similar grief for designing courses which suit their games?

5.  Interesting point about Perry.  Perhaps a better description of Nicklaus courses is that they emphasize precise iron play distance control.  Lehman would be another example of a right to left player that has done well at the Memorial.

Jason, precisely my point in post #6.  These guys have such great distance control, playing the angles is nothing like as important as it used to be, particularly with receptive greens.  Firm up those MV greens, a draw player would be having problems!

[Niall C]

Jason

Not familiar with the hole in question but the way you describe it it sounds very much like a fairly standard par 3 hole concept whether you have the green angled left to right or right to left. I'm no expert on Harry Colt but was this not a design that he favoured, I'm thinking here of a couple of the holes at Swinley Forest.

For what its worth I think its a great idea, similiar to Tilly's Oblique angle hole design, you've got to to get line and distance together or your sunk.

Niall 

[Ross Tuddenham]

Niall

Like you I was not familiar with the hole so I googleg it and found this website.  It is amazing.  So far I have compared the 12th at Augusta with the 12th at Muirfield Village.

Check it out

http://wikimapia.org/#lat=40.1448628&lon=-83.1518483&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2

I will be searching loads of courses on this.

[Lou_Duran]

Jason,

My comments were not directed at you or anyone in particular.

I disagree with your #2.  Nicklaus tests all aspects of the game, driving no less so.  I am far more comfortable off the tee on a Doak or C & C course.  The boys mainly contour their greens much more pronouncedly, and tend to have the bunkers and surrounds maintained in more ragged, "natural" manner.

I also think that #4 is not quite right.  Even at MV, there is generally a side to miss on the approach that leaves par still as a slight possibility and takes DB out of the equation.  E.g. #14 from the right with the pin back is nearly impossible to set up a probable birdie, but short left allows a challenging attempt to two-putt (impossible out of the right rough).

We are in agreement on #5.  In the absence of strong winds, even with firm greens, those guys can control their distances.  It'll be interesting to see how the new groove rules impact the pro game next year (I doubt that scoring averages will go up appreciably, though shot selection may vary- less aggressive play off the tee).      

[Jason Topp]

I disagree with your #2.  Nicklaus tests all aspects of the game, driving no less so.  I am far more comfortable off the tee on a Doak or C & C course.  The boys mainly contour their greens much more pronouncedly, and tend to have the bunkers and surrounds maintained in more ragged, "natural" manner.

I also think that #4 is not quite right.  Even at MV, there is generally a side to miss on the approach that leaves par still as a slight possibility and takes DB out of the equation.  E.g. #14 from the right with the pin back is nearly impossible to set up a probable birdie, but short left allows a challenging attempt to two-putt (impossible out of the right rough).

. . .    

Lou:

Thanks for the comments.

#2

More recent Nicklaus courses I have played (that I can think of) include Desert Mountain Chircaua, Bearpath (Minnesota) and Old Works in Montana.  I would describe each of those courses as very wide off the tee.  I have also heard Nicklaus himself describe his design approach as creating second shot golf courses

#4

I haven't played MV so you know better than me.  While I understand that short left on 14 leaves a possible par, it sounds from Nicklaus' description that the margin for error if you choose that option is still pretty demanding.  On many other courses, taking a safe line also allows for a wide margin of error on the approach.  I have played a few other Nicklaus holes that have that sort of choice - between a slightly easier but very demanding shot to the middle of the green vs. a very demanding agressive line.

[Lou_Duran]

Jason,

I've played some 20 JN courses and they have generally been very challenging off the tee.  Perhaps some of the participants at Sherwood during the KP this year can give their perspective.  I saw shots played from some very unusual places.  It made for a nice contrast with the comparatively wide open Rustic Canyon.

MV is the outlier in my sample because it was built for major tournaments and the water hazards and bunkering are directly in play and more severe.  Probably of greater impact for me, but perhaps not the pros, is the crazy speed of the greens.  The difference between putting on 14'+ greens at MV and the posted 9'-10' on the faster surfaces that we sometimes play is hard to imagine.  Making DB on #1 after having 15' uphill for birdie sort of puts one on the defensive the rest of the way.

MV may have been routed by Desmond Muirhead, but I think it is an accurate reflection of JN, the golfer.  It requires control, patience, and deft touch.  Here is a Muirhead quote from findarticles.com from a 1997 interview that applies to MV:

"There has to be a kind of proportional exchange between abuse and exhilaration to make the hole interesting," he said. "If there isn't, if it's just straight thrill, then something is lacking. It's like the best sex is when you are angry. There is a blandness in most other golf courses. There is no blandness to ours. I am pleased with that."

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,

I've played some 20 JN courses and they have generally been very challenging off the tee.  Perhaps some of the participants at Sherwood during the KP this year can give their perspective.  I saw shots played from some very unusual places.  It made for a nice contrast with the comparatively wide open Rustic Canyon.
...

Sherwood is routed through the bottoms of canyons. The geography limited the driving, not Mr. Nicklaus. I know he is blamed for large budgets, but I doubt he was going to get enough budget to move those ravines around.

[Lou_Duran]

Actually, the half dozen or so canyon drives at Sherwood could have been considerably easier but for the sticky rough which prevented the off-center shots from caroming back to the fairways.  I suspect that the fairway lines and thickness of the rough are consistent with the design intent- perhaps Peter Wagner can verify this- and characteristic of other Nicklaus courses I've played.  I think that Doak and C & C are less likely to use heavy rough to tighten the landing areas.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()